vernonFL:LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

coeyagi:I'll take that as "I agree with you because I couldn't actual mount a defense against it and went with the tried and derpy true 'But Bush' accusation, which actually is a viable defense because it explains a lot of butthurt and behavior by the GOP since 2009."

DamnYankees:vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

That's a development I hadn't seen. I had heard McCain wasn't happy with how it wasn't enough, but that the WH wants to swing the momentum will take more bombing for a longer time. It's looking more like Libya '11 and less like Libya '83.

Tenga:vernonFL: LasersHurt: vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week

I think, for the most part, we know the difference between a hospital and a chemical weapons unit. At least I should hope.

We dont know the difference between a wedding and an Al Qaeda conference.

Radioactive Ass:There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.

International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons. Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved. No one thinks it will solve the conflict. All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle. So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.

paygun:coeyagi: I'll take that as "I agree with you because I couldn't actual mount a defense against it and went with the tried and derpy true 'But Bush' accusation, which actually is a viable defense because it explains a lot of butthurt and behavior by the GOP since 2009."

And it's greatly appreciated (smiles and blushing)! Thanks!

loool

So, what your saying is that you don't project a lot of crap that Bush did on Obama because you are ashamed of Bush's completely failed presidency, which, isn't something the LSM decided, it's something the historians decided as they have ranked him 33rd best president? You're telling me you don't do that? Aww, c'mon caterpillar, you know you do. Let's not play coy, ladybug, you know you completely poop out nonsense rhetoric as a good footsoldier of Fox. C'mon, butterfly, don't be shy. Who's a good shill!?!?! (shakes cheeks) C'mon, who's a good SHILL?!??!! You are, little buddy!

bikerific:Radioactive Ass: There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.

International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons. Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved. No one thinks it will solve the conflict. All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle. So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.

This makes more sense than most of the "Obama is a war hawk" theories. If he was, he would have gotten in much earlier, not tried to push it back to "chemical weapons" which I'd guess he had hoped wouldn't come up.

LasersHurt:bikerific: Radioactive Ass: There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.

International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons. Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved. No one thinks it will solve the conflict. All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle. So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.

This makes more sense than most of the "Obama is a war hawk" theories. If he was, he would have gotten in much earlier, not tried to push it back to "chemical weapons" which I'd guess he had hoped wouldn't come up.

And he certainly would not have asked a hostile Congress for approval.

LasersHurt:HotIgneous Intruder: This shiat is NOT about one chemical attack.If you think that, you're hopelessly naive, a pretty typically adolescent intellect.

"But it IS about whatever I say it's about, whether or not I offer any evidence. This is how I excercise my srs adult intellect (Serious adults namecall people who disagree with their unsupported assertions.)"

If you don't have the sophistication to put the pieces together here, Putin, Obama, Assad, Bandar, then you should just stop prattling. You probably believe World War One was about the Archduke's assassination.It was about oil and the German navy converting their coal-fired ships to oil. The first British units into the field in World War I went into Iraq's port of Basra.Study it out.

vygramul:imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.

If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.

(a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."

bikerific:Radioactive Ass: There is nothing good that will come from us doing this. People will die and that won't bring back the people already dead. We will be breaking our own laws. We will be breaking international laws. We will be risking a war which will absolutely require boots on the ground. We will be inviting terrorist attacks at home that will be hard to prosecute as such.

International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

If Assad uses chemical weapons and absolutely nothing happens, then there is no ban on chemical weapons. Not for him, and not for anyone else.

My impression is that nobody, including the president, seems thrilled about getting involved. No one thinks it will solve the conflict. All it will do is send a message that if you use chemical weapons, you get a cruise missle. So don't use chemical weapons.

You can debate whether or not that's worth it, but that's the real issue here.

pmdgrwr:I guess Kerry is mad that Assad did not pic up the tab when they had dinner with their wives. If you fall for what they say about Syria and think we need to go to war to help Al Qaeda over throw Assad I have a bridge to sell to you, even comes with a on ramp to hope and change.

Um, are you having a stroke? That is the only possible explanation I can think of for the gibberish that you typed out there...

bikerific:International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

The body charged deciding that those laws have been broken, not to mention who must approve the enforcement of those laws in whatever manner, has not weighed in on this as of yet. If the rest of the world won't decide then what gives us the right to do so unilaterally?

Jackson Herring:vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?

it would be pretty funny if Assad moved all his chemical weapons into Iraq before we get around to launching any missiles

vygramul:DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

That's a development I hadn't seen. I had heard McCain wasn't happy with how it wasn't enough, but that the WH wants to swing the momentum will take more bombing for a longer time. It's looking more like Libya '11 and less like Libya '83.

Wouldn't that actually make it more like Libya '11? NATO basically went in with the goal of carrying out their primary humanitarian mission in a way that did as much damage as possible to Gaddafi, and they accomplished that quite well.

Jackson Herring:vernonFL: Sure we can launch cruise missiles, but what happens when one of them accidentally hits a hospital, or a weapons depot that Assad turned into a daycare center in the last week?

it would be pretty funny if Assad moved all his chemical weapons into Iraq before we get around to launching any missiles

imontheinternet:Section 5 paragraph 1 says the first policy behind the intervention is to turn the tide against the rebels to strengthen our position in a negotiated settlement that "ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria." The second policy statement refers to chemical weapons.

Okay, I was on the fence before but now I am totally against getting involved in Syria. This is a terrible idea.

Radioactive Ass:bikerific: International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

The body charged deciding that those laws have been broken, not to mention who must approve the enforcement of those laws in whatever manner, has not weighed in on this as of yet. If the rest of the world won't decide then what gives us the right to do so unilaterally?

odinsposse:imontheinternet: Section 5 paragraph 1 says the first policy behind the intervention is to turn the tide against the rebels to strengthen our position in a negotiated settlement that "ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria." The second policy statement refers to chemical weapons.

Okay, I was on the fence before but now I am totally against getting involved in Syria. This is a terrible idea.

DamnYankees:Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

His own people have been blowing his shiat up for over a year and it does not seem to deter him. I have no idea what our govt means when they say "we need to teach him a lesson" you cannot teach someone who is unwilling to learn. Assad will probably just react in an even more offensive fashion. Dictators don't tend to just back down.

Churchill2004:vygramul: imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.

If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.

(a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."

imontheinternet:vygramul: imontheinternet: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

... and install a democratic government when the war is over.

If that's actually in the resolution, I'm now completely against this.

Section 5 paragraph 1 says the first policy behind the intervention is to turn the tide against the rebels to strengthen our position in a negotiated settlement that "ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria." The second policy statement refers to chemical weapons.

Ah, ok, that's not quite the, "We're going to install a democratic government ourselves," I took that to mean. That's just hopeful hogwash.

Radioactive Ass:bikerific: International laws ban chemical weapons. Of course, international law is largely fiction. It only exists if people think it does.

The body charged deciding that those laws have been broken, not to mention who must approve the enforcement of those laws in whatever manner, has not weighed in on this as of yet. If the rest of the world won't decide then what gives us the right to do so unilaterally?

By the same token, what gives the rest of the world the right to intervene in Syria?

IIRC, Syria is not a signatory to any of the treaties banning chemical weapons. Why would anyone have any authority to do anything?

Biological Ali:vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: ManRay: This idea that targeted air strikes and special forces can win wars by themselves is just not realistic.

No one is asking anyone to win a war. We're trying to create a disincentive for using chemical weapons. That's it. Whether that's going to be a substantial disincentive is the question.

And yet the White House agreed to change the resolution to add language saying our goal was to "change the momentum on the ground"...

That's a development I hadn't seen. I had heard McCain wasn't happy with how it wasn't enough, but that the WH wants to swing the momentum will take more bombing for a longer time. It's looking more like Libya '11 and less like Libya '83.

Wouldn't that actually make it more like Libya '11? NATO basically went in with the goal of carrying out their primary humanitarian mission in a way that did as much damage as possible to Gaddafi, and they accomplished that quite well.

monoski:DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

His own people have been blowing his shiat up for over a year and it does not seem to deter him. I have no idea what our govt means when they say "we need to teach him a lesson" you cannot teach someone who is unwilling to learn. Assad will probably just react in an even more offensive fashion. Dictators don't tend to just back down.

No, he absolutely has to die.

You don't win wars by warning your opponents.

That said, we don't have the political support for a real military action in this country. It's political suicide for Congress if they approve it, which may be Obama's gambit. He's a lame duck, and so he can spear Congress on Morton's Fork.

DamnYankees:Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

The coalition carrying out and supporting this intervention doesn't have to "control the world" in order to seriously dent the prospects of regimes thinking about using chemical weapons in the future. The intervention itself will go a long way towards adding to reinforcing the international norm and adding to the deterrence, and if played right it could result in large stockpiles of chemical weapons being secured and removed from the picture permanently.

DamnYankees:Obama's Reptiloid Master: DamnYankees: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We probably can (realistically) stop that by taking a hard stance on Assad, all with some bombing of strategic targets.

No we cannot. We cannot control the world. We are not god.

Well, we could kill him and most of his officers. That takes the fight out of people.

And it might deter other tinpot dictators in the future.

It also might not.

Again, shiat sandwich, no mustard. But saying, "not my problem!" becomes a problem when the rest of the world sees you as the last superpower.

And yet the rest of the world doesn't want us to do this either.

Well, Britain doesn't, but Saudi Arabia does. Who knows where others fall along that spectrum?

But in 10-15 years, you can bet your ass some kid in Damascus will think, "maybe my parents would be alive if the US had intervened when they could!" as he straps a bomb to his chest and approaches an embassy.